Jump to content

Off topic: Screw Stan Kroenke


Bonner89
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Bay Area Billiken said:

Green Bay is the exception.

If I'm St. Louis, I'm not letting Cincinnati and Little Brother Kansas City, the latter in its own state, getting ahead of it.

Perhaps I’m in the minority here but I don’t give 2 poops that Gary from Phoenix thinks we’re a 2nd rate city because we don’t have an NFL team. Having an NFL team generates little economic impact on our region.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 488
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

3 minutes ago, Slu let the dogs out? said:

Perhaps I’m in the minority here but I don’t give 2 poops that Gary from Phoenix thinks we’re a 2nd rate city because we don’t have an NFL team. Having an NFL team generates little economic impact on our region.  

From what I've read, you may well be in the majority, a majority I would like change to a minority.

The NFL is the biggest, most lucrative, spectator sport.  It would be interesting to see the economic impact on the St. Louis Region with a competent owner at the helm with St. Louis' best interests at heart.  

While St. Louis has made its share of mistakes in the past re the NFL, there are explanations, some of which some powers that be elsewhere do not want to hear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bay Area Billiken said:

From what I've read, you may well be in the majority, a majority I would like change to a minority.

The NFL is the biggest, most lucrative, spectator sport.  It would be interesting to see the economic impact on the St. Louis Region with a competent owner at the helm with St. Louis' best interests at heart.  

While St. Louis has made its share of mistakes in the past re the NFL, there are explanations, some of which some powers that be elsewhere do not want to hear.

Fair enough. 

Heading your way a week from today, BAB. I’ll be in Sonoma and then Napa for a wedding. Any must-see spots you recommended while there? Hopefully my Homefield gear gets here before I leave so I can rep hard while out there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Bay Area Billiken said:

From what I've read, you may well be in the majority, a majority I would like change to a minority.

The NFL is the biggest, most lucrative, spectator sport.  It would be interesting to see the economic impact on the St. Louis Region with a competent owner at the helm with St. Louis' best interests at heart.  

While St. Louis has made its share of mistakes in the past re the NFL, there are explanations, some of which some powers that be elsewhere do not want to hear.

I don't know about having a team overall vs no team. But many studies have shown building stadiums/arenas for professional sports teams does not create a net positive economic impact

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Slu let the dogs out? said:

Fair enough. 

Heading your way a week from today, BAB. I’ll be in Sonoma and then Napa for a wedding. Any must-see spots you recommended while there? Hopefully my Homefield gear gets here before I leave so I can rep hard while out there. 

I’ll send you a PM. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Bay Area Billiken said:

From what I've read, you may well be in the majority, a majority I would like change to a minority.

The NFL is the biggest, most lucrative, spectator sport.  It would be interesting to see the economic impact on the St. Louis Region with a competent owner at the helm with St. Louis' best interests at heart.  

While St. Louis has made its share of mistakes in the past re the NFL, there are explanations, some of which some powers that be elsewhere do not want to hear.

The NFL itself is big and lucrative, but in terms of economic impact on a City, I kind of doubt it is more than any of the other major sports.  NFL only has 8 regular home games, right?  No way you can have as large of an economic impact with so few games.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an asset to a community issue, like the Fox Theater, the Muny, the Cardinals, the Blues, the Billikens, the new STL City SC coming online.

St. Louis was once the 4th largest city in the entire Nation.  St. Louis is still a big city, the #23 TV market. 

I think losing a professional sports franchise or franchises is looked upon as a black mark for a city (even if losing the team is unfair).  See Oakland, California, which has lost 2 and may well be about to lose the trifecta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/12/2021 at 7:43 PM, Duff Man said:

The only way STL ends up with a team (plus stadium) is if the judgement/damages are so extreme ($5-10B) to the point that Kroenke defaults on his indemnification contract with the other owners...leaving them to hold the bag and willing to offer a team plus X billion dollars for stadium/facilities as a means to end the ordeal.

 

The magnitude of the damages hinges on whether the increased value of the franchise as a result of the move are recoverable damages and/or are factored into the punitive damages. 

 

It's not impossible but it's a long shot and many developments away in an absolute best case scenario. 

 

My prediction is that the NFL and the Rams are humiliated in court and after many years of appeals the Kroenke estate pays STL and the lawyers $1-3B in damages.

This. 

And let me give you a reason why this is not so far-fetched a scenario.  At the time St. Louis made their $1.1B proposal for a riverfront stadium north of the Arch, it included about $500M in NFL funds; about $250M from the NFL directly in stadium development funding (done routinely for all new and refurbed NFL stadiums) and another roughly $250M from Kroenke, the owner (again, done all the time by NFL owners in the cities in which they operate.) St. Louis taxpayers were going to pay the rest. Perfectly reasonable.

So if the NFL and owner already pony up $500M (or so) regularly in these scenarios, making a $1B settlement with STL after swatting them away is only $500M more. And giving STL an expansion team at no charge costs them nothing other than opportunity cost. 

When push comes to shove and the defendants imagine this case in front of plaintiff-happy St. Louis City jury with $1-2B in damages multiplied by 10 in punitive damages -- $10-20B -- and the possibility that their anti-trust immunity could get reopened by Congress or the federal judge in Oakland who demanded they create the relocation guidelines to begin with, building STL a stadium and throwing in an expansion team for free will look like a bargain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/12/2021 at 8:06 PM, cheeseman said:

People keep saying St. Louis would get this money but they are only one of 3 suing the NFL.  The City would not get all of it.  The debt on the Dome is held by the Convention Center Group and the County has dog in the fight.  I have seen where the case could be easily worth up to 2 billion.  If the NFL powers don't want to have their dirty laundry aired in court then they will have to pay up for it.

There's a fourth party, too: their lawyers (Bob Bliss and team.) They are working 100% on contingency. So better figure 35-40% for them off the top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/13/2021 at 1:16 PM, cgeldmacher said:

The last time the NFL got sued in this situation, it was Cleveland.  The Browns had moved to Baltimore and Cleveland sued.  What the NFL had going for it at the time was the Cleveland was so hungry for football that offering it an expansion team was an easy fix to the situation.  After settling that case, the NFL put new relocation guidelines in place that were intended to, if followed, prevent them from being sued again.

Then the Rams moved to LA.  The NFL completely ignored the relocation guidelines it put in place during the Cleveland lawsuit when it allowed the Rams to move.  This fact has actually made the St. Louis lawsuit better than the one Cleveland had.  When more stringent, very logical and straight forward guidelines are blown off, the case looks better to a jury.

Now there are stories about offering St. Louis a team.  I suspect that the owners, hearing that things look dire for them, are now wanting to make it go away without actually having to pay out real money.  An expansion team requires logistics, but doesn't require the NFL to write a check.  There are several differences between this situation and the one in Cleveland that the idiot NFL owners are not considering:

1. Most people in St. Louis don't want a team.  I would take one, but I know that many wouldn't.  People in St. Louis aren't going to be willing to trade the vengeance that comes with this lawsuit for a new team like Cleveland did.

2. St. Louis's lawsuit is better than the one Cleveland had for the reason's mentioned above.

3. The NFL has 32 teams divided into two 16 team conferences which are made up of 4-four team divisions.  It is perfectly symmetrical right now.  33 teams is a mess.  Having an odd number of teams means going back to one team having a bye every week.  They would also have one division with 5 teams when all the others have 4.  It just doesn't work out.

It think the talk about an expansion team is just newly discovered desperation by the NFL owners.  Kinda makes me smile. 

I've done a bit of research with former Rams season ticket holders... perhaps a dozen. Not scientific but is directional. When I asked would you like a new NFL team, they all said hell no. When I said, would you be interested if the team were free, the NFL gave us the funds for a stadium, and there was local ownership in such a way to prevent another move like what was perpetrated by Kroenke, 100% said absolutely YES.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Bay Area Billiken said:

At the same time Big East expansion has resurrected, STL's suit vs. Kroenke and the NFL is coming to a head.  The Judge ordering the discovery of financials for punitive damages purposes makes the case ripe for settlement.  This is where cases settle, ordinarily.  Add to that yesterday's ruling issuing sanctions against 4 other NFL owners, and setting an order to show cause re contempt.

The way to settle that case is the way past cities' disputes with the NFL are settled, those that lost teams, namely give St. Louis an expansion team, or better yet, an existing team.  We're all getting older.  I don't want to wait forever for an expansion team to get good.  Why wait out those growing pains, when there is a much better alternative (see below).  And it can't just be a promise of a team in 5-10 years.  First, that's way too long.  Second, it has to be an iron clad agreement that St. Louis will get a team.

I know there is militancy back there re the NFL, and rightly so.  But this really is a no brainer.  Extract as much in damages as you can get from Kroenke.  Make him pay off the Dome.  But get the team.

St. Louis is still suffering from Jilted Lover Syndrome vis-a-vis the NFL.  But please, don't screw up and look a gift horse (a team) in the mouth.  A major city requires NFL Football.  You want to be included with New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, San Francisco, Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, et al., not with Portland, Sacramento, Omaha, Wichita, Des Moines, Peoria ...  (Decatur once had the Staleys, the current Chicago Bears.) 

The best of all would be to get the Chargers to move to St. Louis.  LA never wanted the Chargers.  They are there as Kroenke's tenants, largely due to the ego of Dean Spanos in dealing with San Diego (where that team belongs), and also Spanos is being sued by his own sister, who is trying to force divestiture of the team.  The Chargers are good, man.  They have a lot of talent.  The problem there has been coaching, time management issues.  That coaching problem appears to have been solved.  And don't feel guilty -  because San Diego has torn down Qualcomm Stadium.  A much smaller 35,000 seat stadium is being built for San Diego State on the site.  That new stadium will be too small for the NFL.  St. Louis should have sent a delegation to Kansas City to meet with Spanos when his Chargers played the Chiefs in KC on Sept. 26, Week 3.  Spanos is from California.  While it is doubtful he would want to move to St. Louis, as noted above there are issues, and he may have to ultimately sell the team.  

Plus, the Chargers are a de facto road team for all of their home games.  They basically play 17 road games, 9 of them closer to their Costa Mesa, Orange County base.

If not the Chargers, then there are the Jacksonville Jaguars, a lousy team, but an existing team, the second 1995 expansion team, the franchise that should have gone to St. Louis, the #23 ranked TV market.  Jacksonville, Florida is #43.  The Jags are owned by Shahid Khan, of Champaign, IL, 175 miles from St. Louis.  Khan offered to buy the St. Louis Rams, but lost out to Kroenke's right of first refusal.  Had Khan gotten the Rams, I have little doubt they would still be in St. Louis today.  Khan had to sign a restrictive lease to get the Jags, which supposedly bars franchise relocation any time soon.  

The bottom line is get a team.  Use this lawsuit to force the NFL to give St. Louis a team.  The NFL appears to be willing, now.

Yes, yes, yes. For all the reasons you mention.  The Chargers would be a better and quicker solution if the NFL can sweeten the deal for Spanos to sell to local interests. He needs a deal he can't refuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/14/2021 at 10:27 PM, Old guy said:

I do not wish to be a spoiler, but the way I see it the ones that will really make LOTS of money out of this will be the lawyers.

You’re right, no doubt. But I don’t begrudge this at all.

When they offered to take on this case, not only were they doing it 100% on contingency, they knew full well the NFL would come a-blazing and throw all the most expensive legal resources at it they could, stretch it out as long as they could, ultimately requiring the STL attorneys to finance 5-years in prosecuting the case. That’s before appeals. I’m not an attorney, but I gotta believe their investment in this - again, all on their dime - must be north of $20M. 
 

Good for the attorneys - if they win. If a new team is involved, perhaps equity is (or would be) part of the comp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Adman said:

You’re right, no doubt. But I don’t begrudge this at all.

When they offered to take on this case, not only were they doing it 100% on contingency, they knew full well the NFL would come a-blazing and throw all the most expensive legal resources at it they could, stretch it out as long as they could, ultimately requiring the STL attorneys to finance 5-years in prosecuting the case. That’s before appeals. I’m not an attorney, but I gotta believe their investment in this - again, all on their dime - must be north of $20M. 
 

Good for the attorneys - if they win. If a new team is involved, perhaps equity is (or would be) part of the comp.

I do believe there should be some kind of cap. I believe the Post said they were going to get 35%.  So if this thing turns out to be a billion do they really deserve 350 mil.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, willie said:

I do believe there should be some kind of cap. I believe the Post said they were going to get 35%.  So if this thing turns out to be a billion do they really deserve 350 mil.  

Or $750K if 2 billion.  No need for a cap the parties suing would never be able to foot the bill up front.  My son has a friend who is lawyer with the firm and even though he is property tax and real estate lawyer it has been all hands on deck when necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/32486646/los-angeles-rams-owner-stan-kroenke-angers-nfl-owners-financial-pivot-related-lawsuit-st-louis-move-sources-say

Hopefully this is the first of two good pieces of news we receive today. 

The NFL is in a tailspin and I am extremely aroused right now. A lot of crazy news nuggets in this article.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Slu let the dogs out? said:

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/32486646/los-angeles-rams-owner-stan-kroenke-angers-nfl-owners-financial-pivot-related-lawsuit-st-louis-move-sources-say

Hopefully this is the first of two good pieces of news we receive today. 

The NFL is in a tailspin and I am extremely aroused right now. A lot of crazy news nuggets in this article.. 

That article was pure awesome.

Other owners pissed at Kroenke. Check.

Kroenke clearly struggling with this lawsuit. Check

Kroenke threating to sue the other owners. Check.

Talk of settlements in excess of $1b. Check

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The scuttlebutt is that the "shaky owner" making things worse is Mark Davis (Raiders) who was upset with how the Relo went down and spoke openly about what violations of the Relo Policy he saw.  The theory continues that the Washington Football Team email dumps that led to Gruden getting fired was payback to Mark Davis and the Raiders.

This lawsuit is getting more and more interesting.  If indeed the two cases storylines become intertwined in the Public Relations arena, it will make everything look doubly bad for the NFL.  Fingers Crossed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, SLU_Lax said:

The scuttlebutt is that the "shaky owner" making things worse is Mark Davis (Raiders) who was upset with how the Relo went down and spoke openly about what violations of the Relo Policy he saw.  The theory continues that the Washington Football Team email dumps that led to Gruden getting fired was payback to Mark Davis and the Raiders.

This lawsuit is getting more and more interesting.  If indeed the two cases storylines become intertwined in the Public Relations arena, it will make everything look doubly bad for the NFL.  Fingers Crossed.

There is no doubt in my mind Roger was behind the email dump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Slu let the dogs out? said:

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/32486646/los-angeles-rams-owner-stan-kroenke-angers-nfl-owners-financial-pivot-related-lawsuit-st-louis-move-sources-say

Hopefully this is the first of two good pieces of news we receive today. 

The NFL is in a tailspin and I am extremely aroused right now. A lot of crazy news nuggets in this article.. 

move-along-nothing-to-see-here.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The interesting thing I saw in the article is that one owner, his quote via a source, said that they would not have approved the Rams move if Kroenke did not agree to cover the legal fees.  Translation, they knew what they were doing was improper when they were doing it and were counting on a lawsuit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...